934 N.W.2d 595
Iowa2019Background
- Petitioners filed a timely citizen petition (over 2,000 signatures) asking voters whether Hoover Elementary should be demolished and any salvage proceeds applied as prescribed by statute; petition was presented June 29, 2017.
- School district counsel advised the Board the proposed question was not "authorized by law" because "sale, lease, or other disposition" in Iowa Code § 278.1(1)(b) did not include demolition; Board voted not to direct the county commissioner to place the question on the September 12, 2017 ballot.
- Plaintiffs sued for certiorari, mandamus, injunction, declaratory relief, and damages (including § 1983 claims); district court granted a temporary injunction directing placement on the next general election ballot and later extended an injunction preventing demolition; it also held "disposition" includes demolition but denied damages and dismissed other claims.
- After summary-judgment briefing, the district court ordered the measure placed on the next general election ballot and enjoined demolition pending vote; other claims (including federal constitutional claims) were denied.
- Iowa Supreme Court reversed the district court in part, holding "disposition" does not include demolition without transfer to a third party and that the Board properly declined to place the question on the ballot; the Court remanded for dismissal.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether "sale, lease, or other disposition" in Iowa Code §278.1(1)(b) includes demolition | "Disposition" is broad and includes "getting rid of" a building (demolition); ordinary-dictionary meaning supports voter referendum power | "Sale/lease/other disposition" implies transfer of an interest to a third party; demolition generates no proceeds and is an internal management decision of the Board | Held: "Disposition" is ambiguous but construed ejusdem generis with sale/lease to require a transfer to a third party; demolition is not a disposition under §278.1(1)(b) |
| Whether the Board was required to place the petition on the ballot once signatures met statutory form and number (role of Berent) | Once a lawful petition with requisite signatures is filed, the Board must place it on the ballot; procedural objections only via objections committee | §278.2 limits the Board to submitting only propositions "authorized by law," permitting the Board to refuse placement when measure is substantively unauthorized | Held: Berent is distinguishable; §278.2 expressly conditions placement on statutory authorization, so Board properly declined to submit the demolition question |
| Whether plaintiffs stated viable §1983/constitutional claims (vote/First/ due process) and were entitled to damages | Board's refusal deprived plaintiffs and voters of the right to vote and violated First and Fourteenth Amendment rights; damages and fees appropriate | No evidence of a constitutional violation; actions were within Board's statutory authority and discretionary duties; qualified immunity applies | Held: Plaintiffs' federal constitutional claims fail; summary judgment for defendants; no damages awarded |
| Proper remedy — injunctive relief directing ballot placement and injunction against demolition | Plaintiffs sought immediate ballot placement and an order to prevent demolition | Board argued it had discretion not to place an unauthorized measure on the ballot and to manage district property | Held: District court erred to the extent it ordered placement; because measure was not authorized by law the Board was under no obligation to place it on the ballot; injunctions accordingly reversed/limited and case remanded for dismissal |
Key Cases Cited
- Berent v. City of Iowa City, 738 N.W.2d 193 (Iowa 2007) (city could bring preelection suit but statutes there lacked a statutory "authorized by law" limitation)
- Devine v. Wonderlich, 268 N.W.2d 620 (Iowa 1978) (election statutes regulating the election process should be construed liberally to effect voters' choices)
- In re Estate of Sampson, 838 N.W.2d 663 (Iowa 2013) (ejusdem generis rule: general words following specific terms are interpreted in light of those specific terms)
- Sallee v. Stewart, 827 N.W.2d 128 (Iowa 2013) (statutory interpretation principles, including ejusdem generis)
- Winger Contracting Co. v. Cargill, Inc., 926 N.W.2d 526 (Iowa 2019) (summary judgment standard of review)